Michelle F. v. Dcs, M.B.
1 CA-JV 16-0351
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- Child M.B. born Sept. 2013; Father signed an affidavit of paternity at birth and is listed on the birth certificate. Mother’s parental rights were later terminated.
- Father died while the child was in out-of-home care; the child had been placed with Appellant (Michelle F.), who sought to adopt.
- While Appellant was a prospective adoptive parent, concerns arose (domestic dispute, molestation investigation involving Appellant’s minor son, inconsistencies in home study, fingerprint clearance failure), and DCS moved to change physical custody.
- DNA testing in March 2016 showed Appellant’s adult son (Charles Taylor) is the child’s biological father, which would make Appellant the biological paternal grandmother.
- Appellant moved to disestablish the deceased Father’s paternity and establish Taylor’s paternity; the juvenile court denied the motion for lack of standing and untimeliness and granted DCS’s motion to remove the child from Appellant’s care.
- Appellant appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring paternity challenge | Appellant claimed in loco parentis status and third‑party rights under §25‑409 gave her standing to challenge paternity | DCS/juvenile court: standing for paternity actions is governed by §25‑803(A); Appellant did not qualify | Court held §25‑803(A) controls; Appellant lacked standing to commence paternity proceedings |
| Effect of voluntary acknowledgment and proper statutory vehicle | Appellant argued the court should vacate paternity based on DNA under §25‑812(E) or Rule 85(c) (newly discovered evidence) | DCS: voluntary acknowledgment filed under §25‑812(D) has same force as judgment; §25‑812(E) relief requires fraud, duress, or material mistake, which Appellant did not allege | Court held the voluntary affidavit under §25‑812(D) made Father the legal father; §25‑812(E) does not apply absent claims of fraud/duress/mistake |
| Timeliness of challenge to established paternity | Appellant argued her motion was timely under Rule 85(c) because it was filed within 60 days after DNA results | DCS argued paternity was established at birth and the Rule 85(c) newly‑discovered‑evidence deadline (six months after judgment) had long passed | Court held the motion was untimely—paternity was established in 2013 and Appellant’s 2016 motion exceeded the six‑month limit for newly discovered evidence |
| Change of physical custody / best interests | Appellant argued removal was not in child’s best interest because of their bond and her caretaking history | DCS pointed to prior removals, safety concerns, inconsistencies in adoption process, fingerprint clearance failure, and DCS refusal to consent to adoption | Court found no abuse of discretion: juvenile court reasonably weighed bonding against safety/permanency concerns and granted DCS’s motion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver, 240 Ariz. 18 (clarifies abuse‑of‑discretion review for Rule 60 relief)
- Andrew R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 453 (statutory interpretation of paternity procedures and Rule 85 context)
- Antonio P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 402 (placement/child‑custody orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (trial court’s advantage in weighing credibility and evidence in custody decisions)